Assessing the Quality of Screen Interface Design for Digital Learning Resources: Visual Complexity and Cognitive Load

Purpose of the study. The aim of this study is to substantiate the criteria and factors for the quality of screen interface design for digital educational resources from the perspective of visual complexity and cognitive load, as well as to identify their impact on learning outcomes in a digital and bilingual educational environment. Particular attention is paid to establishing the relationship between the structure of the visual presentation of educational material, the level of learners’ cognitive load, and the effectiveness of knowledge acquisition. This goal is aimed at developing scientifically based recommendations for optimizing the design of digital educational resources, ensuring that the visual structure of educational content matches the cognitive capabilities of learners and improving learning effectiveness in a multilingual educational environment.
Materials and methods. The study is based on an analysis of domestic and international scientific works in the field of perception psychology, cognitive ergonomics, cognitive load theory, instructional design, and bilingual education. The methodological framework utilized concepts of visual complexity, cognitive load theory, adaptive cognitive control principles, as well as the results of empirical studies conducted using behavioral methods and eye tracking. For the analytical section, typical screen pages of digital educational resources, varying in visual complexity, were examined. Interfaces were evaluated based on criteria such as quantitative richness, structural organization, color and graphic complexity, semantic richness, and dynamic characteristics.
Results. The study found that the visual complexity of a screen interface directly impacts learners’ cognitive load. Increasing the number of elements, semantic density, color variability, and dynamic components leads to the growth of the external cognitive load, a decrease in the information retrieval speed, and an increase in the likelihood of errors. In bilingual learning, cognitive load becomes complex, integrating subject-specific and linguistic information processing. It has been shown that high proficiency in a second language reduces the load on working memory and executive control, while frequent code-switching simultaneously increases linguistic complexity and develops cognitive flexibility. A “visual complexity – cognitive load – performance” model is proposed, describing the cause-and-effect relationship between interface design and learning outcomes.
Conclusion. The obtained results confirm the need for a systematic assessment of visual complexity and cognitive load in the design of digital educational interfaces. Well-founded evaluation criteria enable comparable and reproducible analysis of interface quality, as well as the development of design solutions that align with learners’ cognitive abilities. The proposed approach has high practical significance, as it can be used in the creation, examination, and adaptation of e-learning courses, multimedia lectures, and interactive educational platforms, ensuring improved e-learning effectiveness and the sustainability of educational outcomes in the digital environment.

1. Rosenholtz R., Li Y., Nakano L. Measuring visual clutter [Internet]. Journal of Vision. 2007; 7; 2: 1–22. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/book/.

2. Bakayev M.A., Razumnikova O.M. Age-Related Features of Perception of Aesthetics and Visual Complexity of Graphical Interfaces. Izvestiya Novosibirskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Informatsionnyye tekhnologii = Bulletin of the Novosibirsk State University. Series: Information Technologies. 2021; 4: 267-293. DOI: 10.31857/S0235009221040028. (In Russ.)

3. Kireyev M. Kognitivnaya nagruzka v obrazovatel’nykh interfeysakh = Cognitive Load in Educational Interfaces [Internet]. Available from: https://www.b17.ru/article/528740/. (In Russ.)

4. Li Z., Wang H., Chen Y., Liu J. Influence of interface complexity on cognitive load and task performance in digital environments. Computers in Human Behavior. 2023: 145. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2023.107710.

5. Toker D., Gray K., Watson J. Effects of interface visual noise on attention and cognitive load. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction. 2021; 37; 12: 1103–1117. DOI: 10.1080/10447318.2021.1919284.

6. Mezhenko Yu.S. Strukturno-logicheskiye skhemy i ikh ispol’zovaniye v obrazovatel’nykh sistemakh = Structural and logical schemes and their use in educational systems. Saint Petersburg: Piter; 2009. 184 p. (In Russ.)

7. Robert I.V., Bespal’ko V.P. Struktury obrazovatel’nykh resursov i uchebnoy informatsii = Structures of educational resources and educational information. Moscow: VAK; 2011. 210 p. (In Russ.)

8. Izvozchikova V.A., Khudyakova L.G., Salmina N.G. Ergonomika vizual’nykh interfeysov: tsvet i grafika = Ergonomics of visual interfaces: color and graphics. Moscow: Editorial; 2012. 224 p. (In Russ.)

9. Zhang P., von Dran G. M. The aesthetic– usability effect: How visual design influences cognitive load and decision accuracy. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies. 2022: 162. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102810.

10. Lifshits M.A., Shteynberg V.E., Khutorskoy A.V. Semanticheskaya nasyshchennost’ obrazovatel’nogo materiala = Semantic richness of educational material. Moscow: Prosveshcheniye publishers; 2011. 198 p. (In Russ.)

11. Li Z., Wang H., Chen Y., Liu J. Influence of interface complexity on cognitive load and task performance in digital environments. Computers in Human Behavior. 2023: 145. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2023.107710.

12. Sweller J. Cognitive load theory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation. 2011; 55: 37–76. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8.

13. Han B., Wei J., Filippi R. Bilingualism and cognitive load in educational settings: Differential effects of language proficiency. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 2025; 241: 105495. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2024.105495.

14. Corpas Ortiz N., López Rodríguez S. Cognitive benefits of early bilingualism. Porta Linguarum: International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Learning. 2025; 44: 1–13. DOI: 10.30827/portalin.vi44.31898.

15. Tyborowska K., Wimmer H., Heim S. Early bilingual experience and cognitive flexibility in children. Cognitive Development. 2024; 66: 101230. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2023.101230.

16. Han W., Wei M., Filippi R. Bilingualism and cognitive load: Interactions of language proficiency and task complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2025; 51; 4: 845–864. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0001234.

17. Grundy J.G. Cognitive control and bilingualism: Advantages in task switching and inhibition. Cognitive Psychology. 2020; 121: 101–135. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2020.101321.

18. Bialystok E., Craik F.I.M. Cognitive effects of bilingualism: how bilingual experience shapes cognition. Annual Review of Linguistics. 2017; 3: 31–51. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-034208.

19. Oppenheim G.M., Dell G.S., Kuperman V. Cognitive load and language processing in bilinguals. Cognitive Science. 2020; 44; 7: 1–25. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12900.

20. Kuular D.O. The need and possibility of bilingual computer science education in universities of the Republic of Tyva. Otkrytoye obrazovaniye = Open Education. 2025; 29(3): 42-50. DOI: 10.21686/1818-4243-2025-3-42-50. (In Russ.)

21. Pak N.I. Mental approach to the digital transformation of education. Otkrytoye obrazovaniye = Open Education. 2021; 25(5): 4-14. DOI: 10.21686/1818-4243-2021-5-4-14. (In Russ.)

22. Green C., Li J. Strategies for adaptive learning and cognitive load optimization. Educational Psychology Review. 2014; 26; 3: 317–340. DOI: 10.1007/s10648-014-9274-0.

23. Barkhatova D.A., Pak N.I. Structural-mental approach to compiling educational questions. Problemy sovremennoy pedagogiki = Problems of modern pedagogy. 2024; 39; 6: 5–12. DOI:10.32517/0234-0453-2024-39-6-5-12. (In Russ.)

24. Nikitina L.V. Obucheniye shkol’nikov programmirovaniyu na osnove voprosno-zadachnogo podkhoda = Teaching schoolchildren programming based on a question-and-task approach / Supervisor D. A. Barkhatova. Krasnoyarsk: Krasnoyarsk State Pedagogical University named after V.P. Astafieva, 2021. 1195-1197 p. (In Russ.)